Once upon a time I was a big 3.x/Pathfinder fan. For me personally I never really divorced Pathfinder from D&D as it was continuing the D&D tradition that I felt was interrupted by 4E.
Paizo also had (and still does) have a residual amount of good will from me as a consumer due to the quality of the work they did on Dragon and Dungeon.
Over the years though tastes change, by 2012 I was getting burned out on 3.x type games for most of the usual reasons (to complicated, to much work, game gets less fun the more you level up, magic item super markets etc). Another main reason was I was an early adopter of 3.0 which I picked up in 2000. That was 12 years of 3.x, mostly behind the DM screen I barely got to play it as a player and could not play 4E at all (as a player, I DMed it and well yeah).
So what do you do if you are sick of 3.x gaming and don't like 4E. My solution was to run a game of 2E again. We had a lot of fun with that and from 2E our group branched out into the OSR clones, and even played B/X again which was also fun. The mechanics not so good I will admit and I house ruled out THAC0 fairly damn quickly but my players mostly weaned on 3.x gaming and Pathfinder players I recruited actually enjoyed playing 2E AD&D again. The play style was still fun and the lower power level I think helped a lot. For example a level 4 spell magic weapon turns your weapon into a magical one and grants it a whole whopping +1 to hit and damage.
Now the desire for a 2E of Pathfinder has come up on these forums multiple times. I believe that Paizo should do what is right for Paizo and I think a 2E is more or less inevitable at some point. Its a big ask for consumers to consume an RPG edition for 5+ years. I remember them mentioning that they wanted to make Pathfinder last 10 years.
Well its now 2018, its been 10 years since I played the beta and coming up 9 years since Pathfinder launched. I do not regard the initial comment from years ago as set in stone promise more of an ideally this will last at least 10 years. IN those years things have changed a lot, 4E died, the OSR movement exploded and 5E landed and Paizo has launched Starfinder which I may look into this year as Star Wars Saga Edition has not aged to ell for my space opera itch (and I would rather play the D6 version from the 80's and 90's now).
Still waiting for that fantasy heartbreaker than fixes 3.X gaming, Pathfinder I liked more than 4E and that is why I bought into it. After playing OSR again some of the concepts from that era are what I want in a d20 type game. 5E ticks some of those boxes but not all of them. The main thing I want is a game that is nice to run for new players and something you want to DM rather than get headaches wrestling with the rules while retaining a few things from 3.x that are good (that 4E threw out and 5E only adopted some of them).
Better balance at higher levels would also work. Doesn't have to be as extreme as 4E or rewriting the spells from the ground up like 5E but some of the more broken things from 3.X need to go such as the way saves scale vs DCs (5E failed there), the way spells stack and I would prefer most bonuses from things like buff spells being scaled down along with them perhaps not as stacking as much. Spells like Greater Magic Weapon could have there effect not scale and have a fixed +2 or 3 modifier. If you want a larger modifier cast a higher level buff spell and/or tack other effects onto it ie you get some of the abilities of a Solar, or Dragon or whatever. A good buff spell can grant things like resistances instead of just bigger numbers.
Buff spells should also be short duration IMHO, no more than 1 minute perhaps with longer lasting ones being very minor in effect (no more than a +2 bonus). This allows you to still cast buff spells and they will still be good to use. It makes something like a +3 or +4 bonus mean something as opposed to stacking multiple bonuses together which is a headache and can be OP as well. Most of the damage spells are fine as is and they have not really changed in any substantial way since 2E's versions in 1989 (and it is 2018 now).
Now I admit I may no longer be in the target market for Paizo material, but there was a reason I stopped buying it and I doubt I am the only one to feel this way. I still like Paizo as a company and competition is good and Starfinder at least looks intriguing.I would still play Pathfinder as well just not go out of my way to DM it. Keep a lot of the mechanics, aim for the same or very similar playstyle but have a hard look at some of the big offenders whether or not a 2E starts getting worked on this year or in 5 years time (or not at all perhaps that is best for Paizo IDK). The spells should basically do the same thing (ie fireball from 2E-3.0-3.5-Pathfinder) but how they interact with each other and the size of the numbers for spells that do not deal damage could be looked at.
\
Where AD&D was in 2000, well Pathfinder is getting there now with an old rules system tht is 18 years old, in 2000 2E was 22 or 23 years old depending on how you want to count the release (1st 1E book vs the PHB).
You should try a different system altogether for a while.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not into a second edition of Pathfinder. I just don't see the advantage a new edition has over just adding a few more additional options. For example, the unchained classes and combat stamina mechanics, as well as skill unlocks all add some interesting options.
I don't know, I can't say I've been excited about any new edition of the game, but they have been slowing improving in the long run. I would need to see a pretty dramatic shift to justify a new edition.
One of my favorite things about Pathfinder is the way it still feels like the same game I once played in the 1980's. Or more accurately, the aspects of the game I liked. AD&D had some real issues. I can't help but feel like that tether to the past is slowly becoming more and more of a drag. I think that the game probably needs to step away from it's roots as time goes on to appeal to future gamers. Also, the complexity has to come down. Those who have a lot invested won't like it, but future gamers can't be expected to embrace a game that has a 1000 page rule book and dozens of books of supplemental material.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would assert that anybody who asserts we should change course in order to return to a golden age of the past is someone who should be viewed with considerable skepticism, since nostalgia is an tremendously unreliable record of the past.
A second, or "revised" edition of Pathfinder is more or less inevitable, but I don't think anybody is (or should be) in a hurry to get there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder: Unchained was a modular, optional and minor edition upgrade. It includes some balancing and simplifications, it's well received (at least on the boards here) - but it's likely not what you have in mind.
I get a bit dizzy reading through your long text, but in essence you seem to want a lowered power level. That can be achieved with a bunch of houserules: Reduce the amount of available books, rewrite some spells, cut down the players' wealth etc.. While keeping the side effects in mind, and the players' tendency to work around restrictions. Honestly, you might be better off looking for another, more gritty system. You can probably still use Pathfinder material (both Paizo and 3PP) with the other system.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's great already. We can fix stuff we don't like as a group. The chassis is still solid.
As an aside, that thread title is going to turn away a lot of potentially useful discussion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would assert that anybody who asserts we should change course in order to return to a golden age of the past is someone who should be viewed with considerable skepticism, since nostalgia is an tremendously unreliable record of the past.
A second, or "revised" edition of Pathfinder is more or less inevitable, but I don't think anybody is (or should be) in a hurry to get there.
Pathifnder was sold on Nostalgia, the whole 3.5 thrives tagline.
Mechanically AD&D is a mess, its still fun though and some of the concepts in it fixes some of the problems d20 has or it does certain things better.
Say if I found a lamp with a magic genie, got a wish spell and got to design 6E I would not stray to far from 5E but I might steal some concepts from 3.x and AD&D.
For example I might overhaul the 5E saves a bit more, tone down some of the higher level spells, use some 3.x ideas about weapon and armor abilities, turn the 6-8 encounters expectation more into 4 or 5 encounters.
Similar thing to a potential 2E of Pathfinder, I would try and preserve as much as possible of the 3.X system but the maths for example could be overhauled or the way saves scale for example (saves could go up , DC come down). I would rather have a high level fighter make a save 75% of the time than fail 75% of the time. Means a wizard might have to do something like buff an ally rather than throw a save or suck spell with a very high % chance of success.
It seems 5E has had a huge stream of new players as well, the old Basic rules in the 80's were very basic and that boxed set is one of the biggest selling D&D items of all time either number 1 or beaten by the 1E PHB.
Paizo themselves admit they got 2/3rds of the old Dragon and Dungeon subscriber lists to convert to Pathfinder Chronicles. They hovered up a lot of 3.x players and some new players, 5E got a flood of them.
If you are having trouble finding Pathfinder DM's,or if there has been a bleed off from the Pathfinder Society to AL there may be a reason for that. Paizo can no longer rely on disappointed D&D players from 4E switching over.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game is all open content, nothing is stopping you from writing and publishing your own game using as much or as little of the PF mechanics as you like.
Personally, if anything I'd rather see a Pathfinder 1.25E than a Pathfinder 2E... keep basically everything, but do a top-to-bottom rebalance of archetypes, classes, feats, and spells.
The richness and complexity of Pathfinder is the game's main draw, but that richness is hampered by the fact that most options are just not very good, to the point that basically no one will ever use them. I don't see any harm in bumping up the power levels of underpowered archetypes and feats, and gently nerfing things like haste and Power Attack. Keep the breadth of choices, without punishing players who actually want to use some of those atypical choices.
Pass.
The game is all open content, nothing is stopping you from writing and publishing your own game using as much or as little of the PF mechanics as you like.
Personally, if anything I'd rather see a Pathfinder 1.25E than a Pathfinder 2E... keep basically everything, but do a top-to-bottom rebalance of archetypes, classes, feats, and spells.
The richness and complexity of Pathfinder is the game's main draw, but that richness is hampered by the fact that most options are just not very good, to the point that basically no one will ever use them. I don't see any harm in bumping up the power levels of underpowered archetypes and feats, and gently nerfing things like haste and Power Attack. Keep the breadth of choices, without punishing players who actually want to use some of those atypical choices.
Never advocated for a revolutionary new PF system lol.
No one else an make a new 3.x system and succeed with it. Paizo had an established team (solo is a lot of work), they had a brand and they had the Dragon/Dungeon subscribers Lisa has admitted to carrying them early on. Even an established 3pp won't have that and they are vastly smaller than Paizo anyway which is the 2nd or 3rd biggest publisher IIRC.
If you look at a pattern of D&D editions there is also pattern there,. Usually you have a an early period where stuff is a bit rough, then the edition hits its strides quality wise and towards the end they start doing more and more niche stuff.
My thread title was because I thought Pathfinder hit its stride around 2011-2012. After that I lost a lot of interest due to things like Mythic Adventures and the class and race boos that just did not interest me as much as say Ultimate Magic/Combat. They also nailed it with the Inner Sea World Guide.
3.5 I think peaked around late 2005/early 2006 after that the books got more and more niche or they started adding weird stuff to the game and FR quality for example fell off a cliff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game is all open content, nothing is stopping you from writing and publishing your own game using as much or as little of the PF mechanics as you like.
Personally, if anything I'd rather see a Pathfinder 1.25E than a Pathfinder 2E... keep basically everything, but do a top-to-bottom rebalance of archetypes, classes, feats, and spells.
The richness and complexity of Pathfinder is the game's main draw, but that richness is hampered by the fact that most options are just not very good, to the point that basically no one will ever use them. I don't see any harm in bumping up the power levels of underpowered archetypes and feats, and gently nerfing things like haste and Power Attack. Keep the breadth of choices, without punishing players who actually want to use some of those atypical choices.
Agreed. I like PF, but ten years is a long time in today's world. I'd just like PF to get some streamlining. Nerf the OP feats, spells, and archetypes. Merge the many feats that are too similar to each other (Slashing Grace, Fencing Grace, and Dervish Dance, I'm looking at you).
We felt a little burnt out of PF's complexity and went back to 2E.....for about a month. Going back it was obvious, in a hurry, how superior PF is. You got food poisoning? Roll vs. poison or instantly die, since death was the only effect of poison (accept for a couple very rare exceptions). You think wizards are unbalanced now? Watch as a level 12 wizard burns down anything and everything with fireballs that don't have a damage cap.
I just want the core system to PF to get some updates and adjustments, but my group and myself aren't going anywhere.
Oh, and my personal biggest request for PF 1.25 would be a mini-guide for each class in the book. Even just for the core book. Just have a page per class, giving suggested advice, feats, skills, and spells for new players. Yeah there are guides online, but new players don't know that they are SUPPOSED to look for those and do homework on how to play.
A thought: If you can fix the rules yourself, why does it matter whether Paizo publishes your fixes? Just play, yo.
|
Hey Zard has it been 6 months already? Its interesting to hear all about your OSR adventures and then hear about how PF is getting too old and needs an overhaul, but you know, should go back to AD&D.
The buzz around town is that 5E is killing it and Paizo needs to make PF2 to compete. I dont believe that to be true. My experience is that 5E is a tight esasy going game at a casual pace. That is hard to compete with. Though right now PF is differentiated in complexity and customization. When I hear folks say Paizo has to beat WOTC at their own game, it sounds like saying cut off a leg to swim faster. I dont get it.
What was the old, provocative thread title?
Anyways, I suspect a large number of the big changes in Starfinder is testing some mechanics that may see use in Pathfinder 2e.
I think Starfinder is the second edition of Pathfinder and will eventually replace it.
I think Starfinder is the second edition of Pathfinder and will eventually replace it.
Never happen.
I mean it might but flip a coin if the pathfinder fanbase adopts it. Starfinder is kind of a flop in my area.
I see a series of unchained books providing options with maybe a pathfinder X.5 core adopting some of them as far more acceptable to the playerbase.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I see a series of unchained books providing options with maybe a pathfinder X.5 core adopting some of them as far more acceptable to the playerbase.
That's a great way to put my request - more Unchained books! A lot more. There's lots of really nifty archetypes out there with great flavor but unfortunate mechanics. I would love an Archetypes Unchained book. And a Feats Unchained, and a Spells Unchained.
|
If you like 3.5 systems and their games, you might try mutants and masterminds.
It has several similarities and all the three-point X Games as you put it and you'll be able to build your characters from the ground up using a complete point system. It's a good game to play in between Pathfinder games I found it that way at least, so too did my friends in Virginia.
A thought: If you can fix the rules yourself, why does it matter whether Paizo publishes your fixes? Just play, yo.
Because of the three gms my table has, one is me, one is very liberal about changing rules, and one is RAW or go home.
For me, Pathfinder has reached the same level of rules bloat that plagued 3.5 at the end of it's run. I still really like the game, but I no longer love the game. Thus I've heavily customized the game to fit my needs and wants (including adding some of the options from both 5e and starfinder, amongst others).
However, that only works while I'm the DM. When I play in someone else's campaign, I'm back to using the "official" rules, which to me, is...less fun.
Even 'tho I like several of the changes that Starfinder made to the system, I don't play Starfinder (My sci-fi games of choice are Shadowrun, Rifts, and believe it or not Alternity.
And even 'tho I like several of the changes 5e made, I also don't play 5e. I've simply got too much money invested in 3.5/Pathfinder to spend more on another game in the same genre.
|
I mean it might but flip a coin if the pathfinder fanbase adopts it. Starfinder is kind of a flop in my area.
I don't think the issue with Starfinder is so much that people don't like the system, its enough like Pathfinder without all the splat books for that probably not to be the cause, I think a lot of people's issue with Starfinder is that while they might like watching Sci-Fi things they prefer Medieval Fantasy games like they grew up playing.
|
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is suffering from 3.5 problems. Every new class is more powerful than what came before. Every new monster is cracked out to deal with the new classes. A core character has serious problems with the new mods. A new character class steamrolls through the old mods.
... no?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is suffering from 3.5 problems. Every new class is more powerful than what came before. Every new monster is cracked out to deal with the new classes. A core character has serious problems with the new mods. A new character class steamrolls through the old mods.... no?
No.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cleric, Wizard, Druid.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pathfinder is suffering from 3.5 problems. Every new class is more powerful than what came before. Every new monster is cracked out to deal with the new classes. A core character has serious problems with the new mods. A new character class steamrolls through the old mods.
Apparently, you didn't read all the talk about the latest class Paizo created....Shifter. Definitely not "more powerful than what came before"
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Indeed, "classes" are one place where pathfinder has assiduously avoided power creep, since all the most broken stuff is in the CRB. Where they've directed their efforts at "making new stuff better than old stuff" is in boosting weak classes/options. For the most part the new classes are largely more specialized than old ones, and might do great in their niche, but nothing's ever going to be as powerful as the CRB wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
core classes keep up fine, take your standard core fighter, he is able to keep up with DPR of all these new classes. Sure it is lacking a little in the off-role of skills than some of the new classes. But in the primary role the core classes do fine.
Bards are great combatants and supports
fighters, paladins, rangers, and barbs are great weapon fighters
druids and clerics can be a good fighter or caster
wizards and sorcerers are top tier casters
Yeah rogue and monk aren't doing well, but people said they didn't do well in core so it's just that they were never in an okay spot, not that they didn't age well.
|
|
Any game is going to hit a certain amount of bloat after a period of time and a game that doesn't is going to stagnate.
5e is having the stagnation problem. While a growing number of people seem to be finally getting around to picking up 5e, the majority of complaints that I am hearing are all related to a lack of existing options and the slow release of new PC related material. I know a few of the people in my area who dropped pathfinder to switch to 5e when wizards switched the way they run their organized play campaign to be closer to the way Paizo runs theirs and are already looking or considering other options.
I also know several other people who only play Starfinder at this point because it isn't suffering from rules bloat and power creep yet (and to a degree many are tired of high fantasy RPGS).
Pathfinder has been going strong for long time and what options are actually left for them to develop are definitely going to hit the balance dynamics like a brick hitting glass. (not that things have been particularly balanced in a long time)
There is a fine line between releasing too much material and not releasing enough material for todays market. There are just so many options you can release before rules bloat and power creep simply become an inherent part of anything new you can offer.
I don't think that Pathfinder 2nd edition is beyond the consideration of Paizo although I doubt we will see it before 2020 if even by then. Any new venture has to have the cost of development and production weighed against current profit margins and projected profit margins.
I also think that the general belief that Starfinder is in some ways an attempt or experiment in further refining and testing 3.x math based rules for consideration for future games is a belief that at least makes logical sense if even unsupportive by hard evidence. If it is some sort of rules experiment/attempt at refinement, then I assume that they would want plenty of data to use and criticism to steer development before making any announcements or releasing any products with a Pathfinder 2nd edition tag.
Luckily there are plenty of other really good table top, pen and paper based RPGs out there that are worth playing around with and experimenting with for short periods of time. Some of them are even worth running extended campaigns in.
I sincerely take issue with the very concept of "rules bloat". Pathfinder at its core is pretty complex, especially when compared against systems like Fate, and new content isn't really affecting that.
New content is merely an increase in options. Don't want to get overwhelmed by them? Don't use them! Just this month I've made my very first occult character, a psychic, despite our table playing pretty regularly and nothing being banned.
It baffles me that people would consider improving the very strength of the system, the capability to make any character concept you can imagine, a negative. Rules bloat? More like head shrink.
When a new system is launched I have to wait years until it reaches the level of customizability, flexibility and sheer robustness that I enjoy with Pathfinder, right now. And any questions I do have about the system are almost guaranteed to be answered online in the easily searchable forums, FAQs and online resources. A new system requires starting that whole wealth of information from scratch.
The closest Pathfinder should get to a Pathfinder 2.0 is an Entry Core Rule Book, that gives new players a point of entry with a hand selected roster of classes that exemplify some of the best designs with brief character build guides, and references to the other the classes that weren't included. Add in a handful of guides to suggested optional systems to use, condensed spell and feat lists based on most popular choices, and a section on the game's growth and history and you've got a pretty decent product.
Heck, make it look like a well-thumbed tome with side notes and call it a cheat sheet to Pathfinder.
For me, Pathfinder has reached the same level of rules bloat that plagued 3.5 at the end of it's run. I still really like the game, but I no longer love the game. Thus I've heavily customized the game to fit my needs and wants (including adding some of the options from both 5e and starfinder, amongst others).
I'm trying to understand - your problem with PF is that it's too bloated, and your solution is to add in MORE material from two different games?
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Got zero interest in a Pathfinder 2.0.....nadda....zip.....zero
If the new edition or Paizo version of 3.5. actually addresses and fixes the flaws of the 3.5 engine I might be interested. At the very least the core book must have a minimum of 50% of new material for myself and my group to even open the cover. I think Pathfinder as a rpg has a few more years left in it. Though I freely admit I'm more of a fan of 5E as I think it's the better rpg. Not perfect by any means to be sure. They each have their place. Though from my anecdotal evidence I'm seeing less of a interest in Pathfinder and more in 5E. Then again I saw the same with Gurps and the Hero system when Fate and Savage worlds entered the market.
Thanks for sharing. I still want to play Pathfinder. Just find another system to play for a while, if that's what you want.
Interesting post about Poison. Some in the hobby complain that they are a joke in Pathfinder. Then others do the same with 2E D&D in that they are too strong. As a group we are never happy with anything are we.
It's less about strength, more about scaling, and to a lesser degree the mechanics of poison themselves. They're fixed objects, and don't scale. So, they're pretty much locked to a narrow level range, and that level range is pretty low, due to costs exploding.
If poisons were relatively modest, but their DC was 10 +1/2 your BAB + your Dex, or 10 +1/2 the crafter's Craft Alchemy + their intelligence, it'd be a lot more viable at higher levels. The price would be more reasonable as something you use on the regular, too.
Watch as a level 12 wizard burns down anything and everything with fireballs that don't have a damage cap.
Which version of 2E are you playing? My Premium reprint of the 2E PHB lists a maximum of 10D6 as a max damage cap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which version of 2E are you playing? My Premium reprint of the 2E PHB lists a maximum of 10D6 as a max damage cap.Watch as a level 12 wizard burns down anything and everything with fireballs that don't have a damage cap.
It was just more impressive because non fighters were capped at +2 hp per level and monsters didn't get a con modifier to hp at all.
It was just more impressive because non fighters were capped at +2 hp per level and monsters didn't get a con modifier to hp at all.Which version of 2E are you playing? My Premium reprint of the 2E PHB lists a maximum of 10D6 as a max damage cap.Watch as a level 12 wizard burns down anything and everything with fireballs that don't have a damage cap.
1E and BECMI had uncapped spells. But you probably never got past level 10 at least for most players.
Even if Paizo announced PF2 tomorrow you would not be able to play it until end of next year anyway and that is assuming it is a minor tweak.